K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity) [2013] EWHC B11 (Fam) (25 July 2013)

K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity) [2013] EWHC B11 (Fam) (25 July 2013)

The balance of rights under Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR, in the context of the facts and public interest, favours permitting the parents to discuss the case with the media, subject to the existing rubric protecting the anonymity of K and her family. The local authority may be identified, as it was in the published judgment, and there is insufficient justification for further restrictions. The risk of harm to K does not outweigh the parents' and public's rights to freedom of expression and transparency.

Citation
[2013] EWHC B11 (Fam)
Parties
Adoptive Parents / Applicants: MG and FG; Local Authority / Respondent: Coventry City Council; Child / Subject of Proceedings: K; Guardian / Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Family Law (post Adoption) / Application to Discharge Order Restricting Media Discussion; Judgment Following Submissions
Outcome
Application granted; order restricting media discussion discharged.
Legal Topics
Wardship, Care Orders, Adoption, Reporting Restrictions, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Transparency in Family Courts
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Wardship Care Orders Adoption Reporting Restrictions Freedom of Expression +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MG and FG

Adoptive Parents / Applicants

Coventry City Council

Local Authority / Respondent

K

Child / Subject of Proceedings

Children's Guardian

Guardian / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Family Law (post Adoption) / Application to Discharge Order Restricting Media Discussion; Judgment Following Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adoptive parents should be permitted to discuss the case with the media
  2. 2 Balancing Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the local authority may be identified in media reports

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of rights under Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR, in the context of the facts and public interest, favours permitting the parents to discuss the case with the media, subject to the existing rubric protecting the anonymity of K and her family. The local authority may be identified, as it was in the published judgment, and there is insufficient justification for further restrictions. The risk of harm to K does not outweigh the parents' and public's rights to freedom of expression and transparency.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order restricting media discussion discharged.

Orders

  • Parents permitted to discuss the case with the media, subject to the existing rubric protecting anonymity.
  • No prohibition on identifying the local authority in media reports.